ML20216F440

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards for Processing Regulatory Documents Considered to Be of Central Relevance to Final Rulemaking Entitled, Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (10CFR2,50 & 51). Index of Documents Also Encl
ML20216F440
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/11/1998
From: Mccausland J
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Lanham D
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20216F445 List:
References
FRN-60FR37374, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 AE96-1-001, AE96-1-1, SECY-94-179-C, SECY-94-179-R, SECY-95-051-C, SECY-95-051-R, SECY-95-51-C, SECY-95-51-R, NUDOCS 9803180391
Download: ML20216F440 (4)
v • d • e


Text

'

e,#*"'%

M mei 1

qf & UNITED STATES

J.

j

^

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20ess.4001 g

sg f

      • p

' March 11,1998 c

. I MEMORANDUM TO: Don L.anham, bCB, DISS, ADM

, - FROM: Jayne M.' McCausland, RGB, IMNS, NMSS

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY FOR DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FOWER REACTORS (10 CFR PARTS 2,50, AND ,

51) (60FR37374, 07/20/95); PROPOSED RULE -- RIN 3150-AE%

Attached for your processing are regulatory documents considered to be of central j relevance to the final rulemaking entitled " Decommissioning of Nuclear Pcwer Reactors (10 CFR Parts 2,50, and 51). Also attached is an index of these documents. The designator assigned by the Rules Review and Directives Branch is AE96-1 and is noted in the upper right hand corner of the cover page for each document. Please send the copy of the y enclosed c.,cuments to Carl Feldman, RES/RPHEB,1.1/S T9C24. Thank you. j Attachments: j

1. Index 1

- 2. Documents cc w/att 1: Betty Golden, RRDB/ADM ,

?MO \ i I}  %@p

. .jj jkf lllElli!Ill!ll!!Ill!Illilllll!

9803100391 900311 C* DR PR

,_2l 60FR37374 PDR

,37 r)C)l )

o~ %

AE 96-1 REGULATORY HISTORY INDEX FOR PROPOSED RULE DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS (10 CFR PARTS 2,50, AND 51)

RIN 3150-AE96 P_DB

1. 06/30/93 SRM regar' ding SECY-92-382-Decommissioning-Lessons Learned
2. 06/21/94 Note to STreby, JGreeven, and WMMorris from SHWeiss

Subject:

Comments on the rulemaking package relative to decommissioring of l nuclear power plants l

3. 07/07/94 SECY-94-179 - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors ,
4. 09/26/94 EMail from Kenneth Hart with changes to the SRM on SECY 179/COMKR-94-002 attached
5. 10/05/94 SRM regarding SECY-94-179/COMKR-94-002
6. 11/04/94 Modified slides after EDO meeting on Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework scheduled for Nov. 8,1994 l
7. 11/04/94 Finished slides for EDO presentation scheduled for Nov. 8,1994 on Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework 3
8. 11/08/94 Slides for Selin and Rogers Briefing on Nov. 8,1994 - Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework I
9. 11/94 Slides for dePlanque briefing scheduled for Nov. 18,1994 from Nov.14 l Meeting (Proposed Decommissioning Rule Framework)
10. 12/02/94 Memo for T. Ba from R. Do (draft) re telecon with Paul Blanch with list of questions / concerns attached
11. 12/02/94 Letter from Steven M. Garry to Donald A. Cool - Comments on SECY-94-179/1MA
12. 12/07/94 Decommissioning draft rule particulars not explicitly included in slides presented to the Commissioners
13. 01/16/95 EMail from Richard F. Dudley to Carl Feldman and Cheryl Trottier re DOPS comments on proposed rule i

AE 96-1

14. 01/23/95 Note to Carl Feldman from Brad Jones, OGC, forwarding comments in response to request for language
15. Undated Analysis and regulatory evaluation of impacts of decommissioning in 1988 and 1994 rule and GEIS
16. Undated Analysis of comments on the draft pol:cy statement on the use of decommissbning trust funds before decommissioning plan approval
17. Undated 10 CFR Part 20.1406, Public Participation Plan
18. 01/26/95 Memo to multiple addressees from BMMorrison re Office Review and Concurrence on a Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Parts 2,50, and 51 Related to Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors
19. 01/27/95 Memo to .6hn Larkins (ACRS) from Bill Morris forwarding proposed rule  ;

to amer.d 10 CFR 2,50, and 51 j

20. 01/27/95 Memo to Edward Jordan (CRGR) from E. Beckjord forwarding proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 2,50, and 51 21, Interoffice comments on final rule:

4 Undated NMSS comments 02/06/95 Memo to MLesar from BJoSheltors forwarding IRMB comments I 02/06/95 Note to BMorris from GFCran4d forwarding IRM comments

{

02/08/95 Memo MLesar to BMorris foreArding ADM comments )

02/08/95 Memo to John E. Glenn from S. H. Weiss forwarding NRR comments {

i 02/08/95 Memo to Bill Morris from Joseph Gray forwarding OE no  !

objections or comments 1 02/10/95 Memo STreby to BMorris forwarding OGC comments 02/10/95 Additional OGC comments

22. 02/15/95 Ltr from PMBeard, Floridt Power Corporation, to James M. Taylor forwarding comments on SECY-94-179/179A
23. 02/16/95 Note to Carl Feldman from Elise Heumann, OC, subject: OC review and concurrence on proposed rule to amend 10 CFR 2,50, and 51
24. 02/17/95 E-mail from Brad Jones to Carl Feldman subject: Edit a decommissioning package
25. 02/17/95 E-mail from Brad Jones to Carl Feldman subject: Final comments and no legal objection

AE 96-1

26. 04/18/95 Memo to John C. Hoyle from James M. Taylor re Changes to SECY 051 - Proposed rulemaking - revision to 10 CFR 2, 50, and 51 -
27. 04/18/95 Correction Notice with revised attachments to SECY-95-051 1
28. 05/23/95 SRM regarding SECY-95-051 w/ markup attached
29. 07/20/95 Federal Register Notice - 60 FR 37374; Publication of proposed rule j i

1

p- 4

4 ACTION - Parler, OGC/

/p < erg'o, UNITED STATES Bernero. NMSS

. ! 'y , ,.. ,,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS Cys:

2 Taylor wasswovow.o.c.rossa t

    • 4 * *** June 30, 199

( Sniezek Thompson Bldha OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY = , .

pgAlcy 4 y

y dy s \

"Y 7 h 1

MEMORANDUM TO: William C. Parler f General Counsel p b N d ##

  1. ~

James M. Taylor k.w & gT Executive Director for O era ions

.FROM: Samuel .*/. Chilk, Secret

, y)hd.4w E pn (, .

SUBJECT:

SECY-9't-382 - DECOMMISS ONING - LESSONS I - m Ss/ t

}

LEARNED V {

j The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the m staff recommendation to amend 10 CFR 5 50.59 to make it expressly L' ,

applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation and i to Ji rovide cuidance for a polying 10 CFR 5 50.59, after permanent chutdown, to the effect t1at one need not presume operation so long as there is a POL, confirmatory order or other legally binding instrument to remove the authcrization to operate the facility in place.

The Commission agreeing) (with Commissioners Curtiss, Remick and de Plangue'g/76 approves OGC's recommendation that the staff provide ' ,

Luidance decommissioning on theplan.activities permissible crior to approval of the er The guidance should be consistent with the ' p"-Q criteria that the activities must not (1) foreclose the release of the site.for possible unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g, . , OL, POL, OL with r confirmatory shutdown order, etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.

The Chairman would have preferred not to permit major structural changes to a facility or major h-radioactive components of the facility (e.g. disassembly of the pressure' vessel or the steam generators) until the

_decommissioning permitted under the planabove is approved criteria.even if such activities would be Commissioner Rogers would SECY NOTE:

THIS SRM AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAIIABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM. SECY-92-382 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON MARCH 8, 1993.

6 o.rm e - - -(t y $4-196 & ~ COk

1 ~

t t

have preferred to avait the staff's development of guidance before deciding this issue. C LfN l The staff should forward the -

proposed rule and quidance to the._CommissioD for review and ~

b*j approval prior to publication for formal public comment. g5 p I.t "[4 t

I (OGC/EBO-) (SECY Suspense:

J H && - M ll 12/17/93) I The Commission has determined that the NRC will not review or '

approve, in the context of a decommissioning plan review, any decommissioning activities which can be undertaken without prior NRC approval pursuant to the criteria in the preceding paragraph. j Consistent with this approach, the focus of the NRC's review of proposed decommissioning plans should be on the assurance provided by the plans that a return to an unrestricted use  ;

condition will be achieved (e.g., decommissioning funding amount l and method, final cleanup criteria and final survey plan).  !

I However, so that the NRC can fully evaluate the proposed activities which it must approve, the proposed decommissioning plan should describe the licensee's decommissioning activities as required by 10 CFR 50.82(b), (c) and (d). These activities include those carried out under 10 CFR 50.59. The description of these latter activities need not have any greater datail than the ' l reports required by 10 CFR 50.59 (b) (2) . '

1 As the licensee's personnel and organization make the transition--W from operating to decommissioning, much care must be taken to assure that the decommissioning personnel learn what they need to know from the operating personnel. Licensees must be alert to i

steps that may be taken under a revised 10 CFR 5 50.59 which may l present unreviewed safety questions in an unexpected form. Such considerations will require careful review and analysis by the staff in formulating the guidance discussed above.

The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the ) ,

staff recommendation to recuire_licenseen of shutdown plants to Nh 1

'l . inform the NRC, at an early stage, of their plans for post-9 Ss The staff should define i[ i ore precisely now b [h m_nutdown such inrormation activities will be utilized in the at the facility. f [Jg$

overall decommissioning process. .

(OGC/EDO) (SECY Suspense: 12/17/93) jf The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the .

staff recommendation to amend the regulations and provide for (1) l definino a POL and (2) clarifying which regulations in Part 50  ;

A mdy to POLS._ The staff should also prepare a recommended qlefinition of the term " permanent cessation of operation" and include it 171 Ine proposed rule change discussed above. The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and de planque agreeing) also has approved the staff ,

recommendation to _ amend the reculatinns: to define and provide for (but not require) prompt Issuance of a confirmatory shutdown order after the permanent cessation of ooerations. Commissioner  ;

p W .

9"d.6 -

~

Y i' , , ,

Remick believes that this practice will be unnecessary once the proposed rule changes have been put in place.

(OGC/EDC) (SECY Suspense:

.NM55 12/17/93) {

The Commission believes that the approval of a decommissioning plan should not be construed as an action governed by Section '

189a. of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the question of whether to offer a hearing and, if so, what type of hearing to offer, is wholly a matter of Commission discretion. At the same time, the Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and de Planque agreeing) believes that, if the Commission chooses  !

to offer the opportunity for a hearing on the decommissioning plan, any such hearing should be conducted and completed before the decommissioning plan is finally approved. Accordingly, the Commission has disapproved the staff's recommendation to offer a {

i post-effectiveness hearing on the decommissioning plan.

Commissioner Remick would have approved the staff's proposal for offering a post-effectiveness hearing absent case-specific considerations warranting a stay.

i The Commission (with.all Commissioners agreeing).has approved the .p i ataff proposal to provide an informal process for early public ye input means.

other in a manner such as soliciting comments, public meetings or g/

Commissioner de Planque suggested that this early (4g public participation be sought following the permanent cessation .

of operations but prior to implementation of any decommissioning activities. ,/

  • N The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and Remick agreeing).would not object to the staff proposal to formulate an informal hearing process -- including simple approval. notice and comment procedures -- for decommissioning plan The Chairman, however, would have preferred that the Commission go further and commit to additional options toward providing neaningful public participation in the process of commission review and action on decommissioning plans.

C amissioner de planque would have preferred that the Commission ret.l.n a variety of options as to how to afford public participation in consideration of a decommissionfag plan and not I define a specific informal hearing process for Lonsideration of decommissioning orders.

cc: The Chairman commissioner Rogers

' commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque i OIG  !

i Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)

ASLBP (via FAX) e

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20216F440&oldid=3206920"